A Quick Poll About Doubt

[Loffler]

I'm surprised by so many fellow atheists answering "no" or "never" to these questions. Religion is born of instincts to child-like wonderment, instincts you can supplant but never really eliminate. Your rational mind may be disciplined and formal, but what's the harm in wondering from time to time? That's one of the benefits of atheism: you can take religious quandary lightly, like the academic exercise it is. Is there an afterlife? "Extremely unlikely" is different from "impossible." You don't owe it to your credentials to wipe mere curiosity from your mind. If you truly don't even doubt your own doubts, I'm baffled as to how you ever even arrived at atheism in the first place.

I've got a quote that answers this better than I ever could:

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."
--Isaac Asimov

This would mean you agree with me, as I also consider God extremely unlikely and probably nonexistent.

[rlrose328]

This would mean you agree with me, as I also consider God extremely unlikely and probably nonexistent.

If that's the way you want to interpret it, sure.

My point is that I choose to say, with certainty, that I do not believe there is a god and I do not want to waste my time fantacizing that there is, no matter how much whimsy or entertainment value it may provide.  I've got a multitude of other things to dream about... like whether I'll have grandchildren some day or if I'll even be ALIVE to see them.  THAT I'd gladly waste thought cycles on.

[Loffler]

Ah, so you never doubt it because you never think about it. That makes more sense.

[rlrose328]

Ah, so you never doubt it because you never think about it. That makes more sense.

Wow, and I thought CHRISTIANS were the only ones to twist someone's words to fit their own purpose.  

On the contrary, I think about religion and god and the existence of a creator much more than I'd like.  But 99% of the time, it's from the stance that said god and creator does not exist... and that his fan club pisses me off.  

That other one percent?  Probably me thinking:  "Popcorn, popcorn, popcorn, popcorn..."

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make my POV any less valid.

[Asmodean]

Wow, and I thought CHRISTIANS were the only ones to twist someone's words to fit their own purpose.  

I do it to Christians... When I can be bothered to  

[Loffler]

Ah, so you never doubt it because you never think about it. That makes more sense.

Wow, and I thought CHRISTIANS were the only ones to twist someone's words to fit their own purpose.  

And I thought Christians were the only ones who wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

Either you don't "waste your time fantasizing about it," or you do. Either you've "got a multitude of other things to dream about" or you don't.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make my POV any less valid.

Which point of view? You've given two of them. There's yours, based explicitly on certainty, and Asimov's, based explicitly on uncertainty.

[rlrose328]

Which point of view? You've given two of them. There's yours, based explicitly on certainty, and Asimov's, based explicitly on uncertainty.

How about an uncertain certainty?  That's where I stand.  

[Loffler]

I think there's a misconception among many people, especially believers, that agnostics are uncertain and atheists are certain. This is a misconception. Most atheists, including Richard Dawkins, describe God not as impossible or definitively nonexistent but rather "extremely unlikely." This misconception has several consequences, two of which are 1) atheists who merely call themselves agnostic even though they don't believe in God, and 2) atheists who feel the need to profess more conviction or certainty than necessary in order to justify their label.

Atheists are free to wonder about the origin of the universe. They alone take these flights of fancy as lightly as people should take them, as they alone understand just how formal and rigorous the real exploration of the universe is (and hence, how playful religious whims are by comparison).

I'm the kind of skeptic who thinks a true skeptic always wonders about the guilt of the acquitted and the innocence of the convicted. But maybe I've got my skeptometer set too sensitive... aaaand now I'm doubting my own skepticism. See? There it goes again.

[afreethinker30]

I think there's a misconception among many people, especially believers, that agnostics are uncertain and atheists are certain. This is a misconception. Most atheists, including Richard Dawkins, describe God not as impossible or definitively nonexistent but rather "extremely unlikely." This misconception has several consequences, two of which are 1) atheists who merely call themselves agnostic even though they don't believe in God, and 2) atheists who feel the need to profess more conviction or certainty than necessary in order to justify their label.

Atheists are free to wonder about the origin of the universe. They alone take these flights of fancy as lightly as people should take them, as they alone understand just how formal and rigorous the real exploration of the universe is (and hence, how playful religious whims are by comparison).

I'm the kind of skeptic who thinks a true skeptic always wonders about the guilt of the acquitted and the innocence of the convicted. But maybe I've got my skeptometer set too sensitive... aaaand now I'm doubting my own skepticism. See? There it goes again.

Yes alot of people do see it that if an atheist questions then he or she truly isn't an atheist.But that's usually said by christians who seem to think everyone in the world believes in god whether or not they admit it.And you are so right a skeptic does wonder about these things.But wondering and knowing are different.I don't believe in God..be it a Christian god...Allah,Yahweh and I don't believe that anything is up there.But that doesn't stop me from wondering if there isn't such thing as mother nature.Or nature itself being a type of "god".God really isn't the right word for it.But we are ruled by the planet we live on like it or not.And isn't that a type of god...this one we atleast know is there.

[Loffler]

Yes alot of people do see it that if an atheist questions then he or she truly isn't an atheist.But that's usually said by christians who seem to think everyone in the world believes in god whether or not they admit it.

They might be right that everyone has an instinctive need to believe in a creator. Science has already suggested this, and if it's conclusively demonstrated then the new definition of an atheist will become "One who doesn't not give rational credence to humanity's instinctual god impulse."

And you are so right a skeptic does wonder about these things. But wondering and knowing are different.I don't believe in God..be it a Christian god...Allah,Yahweh and I don't believe that anything is up there.But that doesn't stop me from wondering if there isn't such thing as mother nature.

It doesn't have to stop you from wondering if there's a God. It's possible to ponder things you lack belief in. To put it another way: "There is no evidence of God... but could there be someday?"

Or nature itself being a type of "god".God really isn't the right word for it.But we are ruled by the planet we live on like it or not.And isn't that a type of god...this one we atleast know is there.

Here's the difference: it's theism if you think nature is sentient/intelligent, but it's atheism if you think nature lacks sentience/intelligence.

And honestly, if someone believes nature (the whole universe that is) happens to have a living intelligence, but also that it doesn't care about us, and also that this intelligence is subordinate to its own laws (the same way you are subordinate to the laws of your body's biology), that really taxes most people's definition of an omnipotent and loving Creator.

[jrosebud]

I entertain the idea that the Christian god (not that we're talking a singular being here, as there are many incarnations of the myth) exists about as frequently as I ponder the existence of the Greek god Pan, unicorns, and the Sumerian god Enki; in short, if often (I read a lot of fantasy/sci-fi based on ancient mythoi   ), not seriously.  Sure, it's fun to play the what-if games, but I'm not about to adopt a skewed and damaging view of morality and reality because I'm threatened with an eternal barbeque by a group of sun god worshippers (especially when I see little to no evidence for the veracity of the belief system and much that opposes it).

How often do you consider Hinduism to be true?  Do you ever fear the wrath of Zeus?  Does Ragnarok get you down?

Apply your feelings regarding those supernatural subjects to the Christian versions, and you'll probably get a pretty good feel for where I stand.  Rather than being a question of great import, the whole issue seems a mere fairytale, a whim to be mused upon and lightly tossed aside.

[jrosebud]

Yes alot of people do see it that if an atheist questions then he or she truly isn't an atheist.But that's usually said by christians who seem to think everyone in the world believes in god whether or not they admit it.

They might be right that everyone has an instinctive need to believe in a creator. Science has already suggested this, and if it's conclusively demonstrated then the new definition of an atheist will become "One who doesn't not give rational credence to humanity's instinctual god impulse."

Perhaps it's not a need to believe in a creator so much as it is a need to find a cohesive explanation for why things are as they appear and ways to cope with situations out of one's control.  Gods are merely stopping points in the process of exploring the universe; once you say "god(s) did it" and establish its/their authority, there's no need to look further.  That works for a lot of people.

For others, it doesn't.  The pat answers, when reviewed more closely, give rise to new questions; skeptics and scientists are born.  Rather than having a "god-shaped hole" in our hearts (i.e. our brains), I think we all just have a need to make sense of our place in the universe.  Some of us are more easily satisfied than others.

[Loffler]

Perhaps it's not a need to believe in a creator so much as it is a need to find a cohesive explanation for why things are as they appear and ways to cope with situations out of one's control.  Gods are merely stopping points in the process of exploring the universe; once you say "god(s) did it" and establish its/their authority, there's no need to look further.  That works for a lot of people.

For others, it doesn't.  The pat answers, when reviewed more closely, give rise to new questions; skeptics and scientists are born.  Rather than having a "god-shaped hole" in our hearts (i.e. our brains), I think we all just have a need to make sense of our place in the universe.  Some of us are more easily satisfied than others.

I've seen it said that everyone uses he scientific method, but most stop at "hypothesis."

[myleviathan]

1) I doubt my disbelief in a divine force
b - infrequently (once a month to once a year)

2) I doubt my disbelief in the historicity of the Bible
a - never (a resounding never at least for the miraculous events like resurrection, walking across water, etc)

3) I doubt my disbelief in an afterlife
a - never

4) I believe that morality is absolute
c - Sometimes I think it is, sometimes I think it isn't

And, a quick followup question to 4): If I believe morality to be absolute, I believe this on the basis of: the secular, scientific pursuit for human psychological, physical, and otherwise holistic well-being.